Senators Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham are working to create climate legislation.

As details begin to trickle out about a new version of comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation, the contents of the bill are starting to become more and more clear.

Yesterday, the trio of Senators, John Kerry, Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman met with several representatives of the affected industries to continue their process of building support.

According to several sources in the meeting room, the bill calls for greenhouse gas curbs across multiple economic sectors, with a 2020 target of reducing emissions by 17 percent below 2005 levels and an 80 percent limit at midcentury. Power plant emissions would be regulated in 2012, with other major industrial sources being phased in starting in 2016.

Along the lines, the bill would also pre-empt the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases, something it has been planning to do after the endangerment finding last year. There are also provisions that would make this cap a national one, giving true certainty to the market.

Overall, the bill will include eight titles: Refining, America’s Farmers, Consumer Refunds, Clean Energy Innovation, Coal, Natural Gas, Nuclear and Energy Independence. And it will set up new nationwide standards for energy efficiency and renewable energy, as well as ideas on carbon market regulation crafted by Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine).

.
It is still expected that some sort of draft summary will be available to other senators next week, even though Sen. Kerry would not confirm that.

According to the National Wildlife Federation, the support picked up in the states as well:

In South Carolina, Sen. Graham’s efforts earned support from two key constituencies. As Grist reports, the Christian Coalition and a veterans group are backing efforts to pass clean energy & climate legislation.

Support for clean energy and climate legislation is diverse and strong. Now, as we move closer to having a Senate bill, more details will become known and the true support in the Senate will be tested.

Courtesy: Politico

The New York Times had a great piece today, breaking down where the wavering Senators on comprehensive climate legislation park their interests.

Citing E&E, the article assumes there are 41 “yes” votes and 29 “no” votes in the upper chamber, leaving exactly 30 to be had, of which 19 are need to reach the magical number of 60.

Most of the fence-sitters call states with significant coal interests home, something probably not good given attempts to curb greenhouse gas pollution in the bill. The leader has to be Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), who has introduced legislation to prevent the EPA from enforcing regulations itself. Obviously the senior senators from that state, Robert Byrd, is also a question mark, as well as Montana’s Max Baucus.

But others have been much more hostile. Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) disagrees with the push for a climate bill and instead prefers an energy-only approach. Sens. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) and Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) have questioned the economic costs of moving too fast and too aggressively.

And Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) has even unveiled a campaign ad touting her opposition to cap-and-trade legislation, a point not lost on Democratic leadership.

Many sit firmly in the nuclear field as well, none more than one of the leading trio, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). Graham is not a fence-sitter, but his ability to please some others that feel nuclear energy is the best way to go carbon neutral (the French plan), will prove invaluable.

My favorite of this group is Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), listed as being on the fence. He is of course the same Senator who wants to build 100 nuclear plants in the U.S.

Eighteen of the 30 senators on E&E’s list come from states that are home to commercial nuclear industries: Arizona’s John McCain (R), Arkansas’ Lincoln and Mark Pryor (D), Florida’s George LeMieux (R), Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu (D), Massachusetts’ Scott Brown (R), Michigan’s Levin and Stabenow, Missouri’s Claire McCaskill (D), Nebraska’s Ben Nelson (D), New Hampshire’s Judd Gregg (R), Ohio’s Brown and George Voinovich (R), Pennsylvania’s Specter, Tennessee’s Lamar Alexander (R) and Bob Corker (R), Virginia’s Jim Webb (D), and Washington’s Maria Cantwell (D).

Beyond tax incentives and loan guarantees, it is Graham’s idea of a renewable energy standard that allows power sources to use nuclear capacity to reach targets that will draw many of these members.

When it comes to trade-intensive industries, one big question remains: how do we protect American business?

[Sens. Bayh, Specter, Rockefeller and Byrd], for example, took the lead last summer in writing to Obama with a pledge to oppose any climate legislation that did not come with a “border adjustment mechanism” that would allow for trade sanctions on carbon-intensive goods from developing countries that do not have strong enough climate policies.

The big worry is that business will just produce elsewhere because they won’t have to deal with any regulation. No party wants to see that happen, meaning provisions in the bill preventing it are very likely.

But save the biggest, most financially influential industry for last: oil and gas. Home of 13 Senators according the story, the range of items on the wish list of this group is large, if not diverse. Sarah Palin hit it on the head: “Drill, baby, drill.”

Just last week, Sen. Lisa Murkowski said her vote was contingent on the opening of ANWR to drilling, something highly unlikely, but sure to be debated again, just to continue beating a dead horse.

Sen. Mary Landrieu, of Louisiana, is sure to call for the drills as well, but in the Gulf of Mexico, where she already 8.3 million acres of untapped water.

There is a difficult balance when drilling is involved, as it is mostly included to gain votes, but can cost votes if the actually activity is off the coast of a different state where a reliable “yes” vote lives.

While there will be also be issues about how to apply a carbon cap, something which has been a major part of the conversation recently, these have been the main issues since the debate began. The idea of regulating different industries differently will surely continue to be discussed.

With 30 votes sitting out there and 19 needed, much work clearly still needs to be done. By all accounts, the trio of Kerry, Lieberman and Graham are not only working tirelessly, but have enlisted the help of several other members. Lieberman has said he is aiming to have something out before Easter break, which is less than three weeks away.

President Obama met with Sen. Kerry and others at the White House on Tuesday.

While the Obama administration continues to push funding for clean energy jobs, from high speed rail to solar energy and job training programs, the president himself has also interjected himself into the legislative battle heating up in the Senate.

Yesterday Obama made himself a principle, inviting 14 members of the upper chamber, including the tri-partisan group of Senators John Kerry, Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham, up to the White House for a meeting to assess the status of legislation.

According to Politico, the president was clear about his goal of a comprehensive bill.

In opening remarks, according to Senators in attendance, President Obama took the idea of an energy-only bill – the preferred approach of moderate Democrats – off the table, saying he wanted a “comprehensive” bill that includes a cap on greenhouse gas emissions.

Obama also made it known that he wants the bill done this year.

Graham reiterated his earlier statements that he would only back comprehensive legislation, with the same colorful language, a stance he was happy the president took.

“I’m not going to support some half-assed reform,” he exclaimed.”

The meeting was bi-partisan, including Maine Senator Susan Collins, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire and Richard Lugar of Indiana. Even Alaskan Senator Lisa Murkowski, author of the Dirty Air Act, was present.

According to news accounts, the meeting was extremely positive – Murkowski said it was a dialogue, not arm twisting – and Kerry plans a series of meetings next week.

Also at the meeting from the Obama administration were Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, top White House climate advisor Carol Browner and top economic advisor Larry Summers.

Graham has said he would like to have a proposal out before the Senate heads to Easter break, meaning that we could be pretty close. Having 14 Senators meeting in a positive light with the president can only serve to help the momentum.

So, apparently, are the three key Senate figures: Sen. John Kerry, Sen. Joe Lieberman and Sen. Lindsey Graham.

The New York Times reported today that talks around climate legislation will intensify this week, specifically where the carbon cap is concerned.

“It’s time,” said a Senate aide close to the process. “Game on.”

According to the story, staffers are saying that the trio has agreed on a list of ideas they will start pushing around the Senate to gauge feedback. Sen. Kerry has at least eight climate-related meetings scheduled this week, while the other two have several Senators from both sides of the aisle on tap.

The conversations will certainly include nuclear energy, carbon capture and storage technology and agriculture offsets. The three plan to leave no stone unturned, but know that there will be a cap on carbon and investment in clean energy.

To kick off the effort, Sen. Graham had some of his strongest comments on the issue to date, speaking in a frank manner in yesterday’s Times.

“I have been to enough college campuses to know if you are 30 or younger this climate issue is not a debate. It’s a value. These young people grew up with recycling and a sensitivity to the environment — and the world will be better off for it. They are not brainwashed. … From a Republican point of view, we should buy into it and embrace it and not belittle them. You can have a genuine debate about the science of climate change, but when you say that those who believe it are buying a hoax and are wacky people you are putting at risk your party’s future with younger people.”

But it was perhaps his statement later that will carry the issue through to the needed 60 votes.

“If we try to clean up the air and become energy independent, we will create more jobs than anything I can do as a senator.”

There are still a few dozen meetings to have before this becomes a full bill, ready to be scored and sent to the floor. However, as we are saying out here, that means it is our time to shine.

Our work steps to another level of importance right now. We have to convince members that this is a good issue, an important issue and an urgent issue. It seems as if the train is leaving the station in the Senate, finally. Now we have to make sure all of the tracks are down.

“If the approach is to try to pass some half-assed energy bill, and say that moves the ball down the road, forget it with me,” said South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham.

The outspoken supporter of comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation said that a bill that doesn’t cap carbon would not be good enough. He called the energy-only approach, “putting off to another Congress what really needs to be done comprehensively.”

“The world is moving, pollution is growing, we’ve got a chance to get ahead and lead. If we wait too long and if we try to take half measures as the preferred route on all these hard problems, they just get worse.”

For his part, the president told Senate Democrats this morning to not give up.

“Don’t give up on that,” Obama said. “I don’t want us to just say the easy way out is to just give a bunch of tax credits to clean energy companies. The market works best when it responds to price. And if they start seeing, you know what, that dirty energy is a little pricier, clean energy is a little cheaper, they’ll innovate and they’ll think things through in all kinds of ways.”

Putting a cap on carbon is what causes the price for dirty energy to rise, making clean energy a cheaper and better option for energy production. Coupled with incentives for clean energy companies, American can finally get on the high speed, clean energy train before it leaves the station.

Otherwise, only the Chinese and Germans will be on board.

Think Progress has some other statements made by Senators, half-assed excuses as to why they have no pushed clean energy and climate legislation yet.

His message: as written, it looks bleak. With some changes, it looks very good.

That Graham is a Republican who has joined with Senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman, while inspirational, is only a first, albeit major, step in creating the necessary coalition needed to pass a meaningful bill.

During his State of the Union speech last night, President Obama opened the door for conversations that will certainly not be popular for many fighting climate change. He included oil drilling, “clean” coal and nuclear power. He appeased some skeptics, saying: “I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change.”

But the fact remains that the president called for comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation. He said that, “the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy. And America must be that nation.”

President Obama is committed to a clean energy future.

Click here to view the embedded video.

But there are more facts. Special interests, led by Big Oil, are spending hundreds of millions of dollars fighting to maintain their profits. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent $123 million in 2009 alone.

The hurdles are often the Senators themselves, led by Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who is still trying to gut the Clean Air Act. She was joined by a couple of Democrats, one of which is Mary Landrieu (D-LA), who has sponsored drilling legislation in the past. The other, Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln, joined with Murkowski and Landrieu in sponsoring the Dirty Air Act.

Even the House-passed American Clean Energy and Security Act had some concessions for coal-fired power plants. Many have said that any Senate bill will have those, along with nuclear power and drilling components.

Where the youth movement comes in is right here. By continuing to push Congress and the administration to focus on clean energy solutions, we can limit those associated with last century’s energy policies. Instead, we can build the foundation, as the president said, for American innovation.

As was said on the Youth Climate Movement blog, we must, “start telling our own story,” to shape climate legislation to our benefit.

While the president was speaking, I could hear the opposition form in my head, from both sides of the aisle: “it is too big to do in an election year; let’s wait one more year; climate change is a hoax.”

Well, it is safe to say that the “hoax” man, Sen. Jim Inhofe, will not be voting for clean energy. As to the other two points, Obama had an answer:

“How long should we wait? How long should America put its future on hold?”

“You see, Washington has been telling us to wait for decades, even as the problems have grown worse. Meanwhile, China is not waiting to revamp its economy. Germany is not waiting. India is not waiting. These nations — they’re not standing still. These nations aren’t playing for second place. They’re putting more emphasis on math and science. They’re rebuilding their infrastructure. They’re making serious investments in clean energy because they want those jobs. Well, I do not accept second place for the United States of America.”

That is our future the U.S. Senate is putting on hold.

Last night was not the end, or even a low point, of this fight. Instead, it was a call both within that chamber and outside the capitol, reminding the voices of reason to speak up, with continued vigilance.

We’re done waiting.

Last night was a reminder: this fight is not over and it is one we cannot lose.

Video courtesy of Repower America.